• 1 Post
  • 14 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • Your question would be much better applied to height discrimination, which is something that’s almost never mentioned, but is a lot more indicative of the nature of discrimination itself.

    It is instinctual, as others have said, but it has nothing to do with tribalism or war, its about resources. Discrimination is almost always about resources (the notable exception being gender/orientation based discrimination, which I guess is religious?).

    The discrimination against small people (and obesity and age as well), is more basic, and likely older (in evolutionary terms), and is oriented towards hunting and fighting. We think less of smaller, fatter, and older people because they’re assumed to be less capable of gathering (and fighting for or defending) basic resources.

    Discrimination against races is more recent, and more societal, and is more about monetary resources, and isn’t even entirely a matter of race. Poor white people can be discriminated against in the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Racism is more classist than discrimination against height, weight age, etc. but is essentially still a matter of these classes being seen as less capable of getting resources.

    You can see it more easily if you look objectively at the discriminatory tendencies of women (and I mean that in a very generalized way). They tend to be far more discriminatory towards resource based biases… Height, weight, physical condition… They’re often inexplicably attracted to overly aggressive partners, occasionally to their own detriment. The more instinctual a woman is, the more likely to pursue the overly aggressive men. Race isn’t anywhere near as much a factor, and there are notable exceptions in all factors for women if a man obviously has a lot of resources already (no indictment intended ladies, just is what it is, and generally)

    And of course it’s more obvious among women for the same reason… The disparity (again, in a very general sense) between male and female in ability to gather and defend resources affects women’s choices of partners more so than men.





  • aelwero@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldThey’re the same
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Socialism is left/liberal as a concept (and so is capitalism, in actual fact)… It’s not left/liberal when implemented at scale…

    The arbiter of resources, whatever or whoever that may be, invariably becomes right/authoritarian. The simple nature of the arbitration causes it, and a truly left/liberal society would, by necessity, require a lack of said arbitration.

    Such a society cannot exist at scale. History has proven that repeatedly. A left/liberal society could arguably only exist as anarchy, and frankly, capitalism is far closer to that than communism is. The “every man for himself” nature of capitalism is inherently more capable of providing individual liberty and equal opportunity than the “to each according to his needs”, very simply because of the inherent requirement of having an entity judge that need… Said judging entity is inherently authoritarian in nature…


  • Every bn will have a challenge coin (or several, sometimes the senior NCO will have his own design), so there’s a unique design for roughly every 1,000 people in the army, and they get redesigned fairly often, because the command teams change out after just a few years and often want to have their own version.

    Which is just to say that it’s fairly common for someone to go googling to look for images to put on challenge coins, not that it’s normal for yours, out of billions of possibilities on the internet, to have been picked out :)

    Please tell me they did you the courtesy of sending you one of those coins…






  • So instead of being bought, he’s being extorted? Yeah that totally makes the current version of his story more valid… Throw this motherfucker off the witness stand and send him on his way, he’s either full of shit or he’s full of shit…

    Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges? Is that how this shit works now? Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he’s doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

    Indicting witnesses isn’t the fucking high road. Fuck trump, but fuck this bullshit too. This is exactly the sort of shit that “defund the police” types bemoan when it’s done to a nobody, but hey, as long as we get trump, it’s all fucking good… it’s fucking not good…


  • Don’t give a fuck about the balance between individual rights and positive rights. I’m not entitled to any determination of your options, values, or ideals, and I’m against anything or anyone that does.

    I can piss on the bathroom door… I don’t need the bathroom, it’s a courtesy that we use the bathroom (ask San Fran…), and I have the right to wait a little while out of courtesy.

    What you’re missing here is the responsibility that an individual has in a completely free environment to not break the unwritten rules of not being that one fucking asshole that’s always gotta fuck it up for everyone else…

    Fuck positive rights. That’s what I think :)



  • General officers come with flags, placards, and assorted other bric a brac. The rule of thumb I quoted is decades old, and intended to help clarify how all that goofyness should be addressed, and generally benefits joe.

    An officer in civvies carrying his uniform with his rank visible is actually an outstanding example of how said rule of thumb precludes stupid shit, because that guy is almost definitely playing the bullshit game… I’d just salute the fucker, ain’t nobody got time fo dat ;)